/r/askTheology
The purpose of this subreddit is to promote theological literacy by providing well-reasoned, well-informed responses to questions about Christianity and related topics. We aim to dispel common misconceptions and cease the dissemination of misinformation.
Please:
Do not troll or take jabs
Stay on topic
Avoid speculation. If you must conjecture, declare it to be such
This subreddit is not for debating. Honest discussions may be had about, eg, the validity of arguments for God's existence. However, threads that are not pursuing intelligent discussion will be deleted.
This subreddit depends on you to keep it clear of misinformation, anecdotes, and snyde remarks.
Proven contributers may, after posting several worthwhile comments, ask for a moderator to review their contributions and grant them "scholarly" status. This will help guide the subreddit in the right direction by lifting up worthwhile comments.
Moderation may be harsh at first as the community establishes itself. If your comment is not scholarly, promotes common misconceptions, or contains unqualified opinion or conjecture, it may be removed. Strict moderation will cease when the community is established.
/r/askTheology
I have heard that Christian theologists have been influenced by ancient Greek ideas like the Logos and stuff like that. Why did this idea turn into a complete negative? I guess there is no room for neutral spirits in Christian mythology, everything is either good or bad.
I’m a writer and I’m making a story based loosely off Gnosticism and it’s concepts. The 12 Apostles are going to be a big part of the story but I need to know their names for it. If somebody could give me a list of the names in the Gospel of Matthew and their Gnostic equivalents it would be very much appreciated. Thank you for your time.
Hi everyone.
I have always pondered what is the justification of the emphasis on the spoken word (or subvocalized thought) and particularly certain linguistic propositions in Christianity. Particularly given the conventionality of much of human language, at first glance it seems like it might be a confusion of popularization. Maybe this is due to the centrality of language to the human self-image along with its ability to bind, mediate, and unify us, but also maybe because of the historical context of the emergence of literacy in which the rise of the Christian religion had some overlap with.
Could someone who suffers from some neurological condition that prevents them from doing these things still be able to adhere these principles/rules?
Regarding the opposing position (or the affirmative to its emphasis), I want to say there are after all people into new age spiritual notions who think that thought is actually more important than embodied action.
**Some of my own speculation:**Somewhat metaphysically one can see the re-presentation of a linguistic proposition to the mind as in prayer as important to the higher-level aspects of yourself (like your own narrative & self-image) and as a sort of top-down constraint that is (indirectly) mediated by the social body (e.g. the church). Actions of course are socialized too but they are more variant by definition and so they are harder to unify. If one were to only view actions as important and disregard thoughts and words perhaps we would become less unified? (that is off the cuff and I'm not a philosopher, theologian or even a practicing member of any religion so forgive my ignorance)
Bear with me, it's not a strictly-Christian question and it's a tricky thing to put into words, but I'm hoping that ya'll can help me find the right words so that I can do further reading.
Different religious communities at different points in time have had different ideas about the standards of conduct for different people. For example, the trope of Italian and Irish Catholics is that the laymen can be addicts and sinners while the clergy are pious and conservative (so the laymen are supposed to do confessions and make donations to the church; the priests dedicate themselves to higher moral standards than the general population and don't reasonably expect everyone to act like priests). This is a bit similar to Buddhist societies where monks+nuns are solely focused on their religious practices while the laymen carry-on with their worldly things. On the other hand, Mormons+JWs+Puritans and Muslims think more on the side of "everyone will be judged individually by the same standards; nobody should ever be condoning sin and everyone should constantly be striving for perfection" and so on; their religious leaders can have wives and businesses because they're just normal humans among other humans.
So it's not exactly how "conservative" or "hierarchical" or "strict" a religion is, but some other term that encompasses all 3; the extent to which the average follower is "devout" and how the devout ones think about the less-devout or disbelievers. Is there a word for this?
I read that Sebastian Franck developed it and it led to religions such as the Quakers. Interested in the basis of it and how it became somewhat mainstream.
Disclaimer: I'm an agnostic. I have no dog in this fight, but also I think it's worth specifying because it says something about why the following questions confuse me.
I heard about Process Theology recently. For those unfamiliar, I think it could be described as placing the Christian God within the context of time, rather than existing outside of time. It assumes that free will exists, and that as a consequence, God either does not have or does not practice coercive omnipotence. And as humans practice that free will, God experiences the changes in the universe as we do. If my definition is incorrect or incomplete, please feel free to correct me. I'm just providing my understanding so we have a place to start from.
From what I've seen, it seems to be extremely controversial in Christian circles. But the reasons aren't necessarily clear to me. I've seen people discuss it within the context of biblical inerrancy and the perfection of God. Does Process Theology necessarily undermine these ideas? For that matter, does this theology change the way in which one believes and is called to live a Christian life?
And if I might piggyback a related question on this, to the degree that metaphysical questions about the nature of God don't appear to be actionable, why is there so much heated theological debate? For example, I remember reading Julian by Gore Vidal. It's a fictitious novel about the life of Julian the Apostate. I remember learning from that what a big deal Eusebius of Nicomedia made of Arianism. From the perspective of an outsider, it seemed strange that there was so much heated disagreement between the Arianists and those who followed what would become the Nicene Creed. Is there a reason one should fight about what seems to be to be an unknowable metaphysical fact? Is there a reason there should be so much disagreement about whether God exists within or outside of time?
Faith is the attitude of taking things as true/false without proof, by definition. This is not "knowing" the truth. So, if there is a god (omniscient, infinite mind, etc.), it must be reasonable for him to want us to know instead of faithing, right? then it follows that the scriptures that ask us to faith/believe have nothing to do with God(?).
I have grown up in the church and have been confirmed and have never had any issues with anything. But now i have some questions that people keep just disregarding and I would like some help in thinking about these types of things:
It seems strange that Paul claims that Jesus did not teach us everything before he ascended to heaven. Why would God wait on Paul to finish teaching us everything? I think Paul was lying about God telling him to teach us new things. Jesus told us everything we need to know before he ascended. Is this possible?
How do miracles work regarding the Holy Trinity?